I don't know any good black metal that has 100% negative intensity. Good words. Metal songs can be about transforming experiences in form and content, yet some remain satisfied with just producing "songs". Make the music of your dreams if you have the will and ability, but dream big enough first. I don't entirely agree with #3, the scope of the majority engaged in Black Metal is limited. The genre has been limited by the ambitiousness of its artists and the weakness of their spirit or ability. Every now and then, someone shows there is room for something. Whether it is Engram or Eksistensens Jeger or even Rudra. By the way, hilarious Pink Frothy AIDS story.

I think the points about later Graveland and "My Journey to the Stars" being good models are spot on, and in fact, most of the best black metal is of an epic nature, or at least makes a clear statement that goes beyond the aesthetic of bad production and satanic posing.

Even Transylvanian Hungar, which is the easiest album to fake, was meant more as a statement against what metal became, rather than a direction to be carreid on. I don't think Darkthrone ever intended that album to become the black metal norm, and you can tell by their lack of commitment to folllow that direction on the next album that this is so. Only about less than half the album builds on the formula.

I don't know which is worse though; the fake Black Metal, where someone just speed strums a bunch of shit on a crappy recorder to sound cool, or the state of the art productions of cheese that Dimmu Borgir and Cradle of Filth put out. I kind of favor the former, honesly. At least they have a touch of the right spirit.

That being said, my ongoing policy is not to apologize for mediocre metal and only to praise the best.

The question of whether metal should jump ship or go back to its roots is somewhat oversimplified in my opinion. But I think genre-evolution (including composition and instrumentation) is inevitable; moreso genre is merely a vehicle for ideas, it changes when the vehicle is depleted of energy and/or when it can no longer accomodate the expansion of ideas. And yes ideas need to expand, not that metal ever required an era-specific voice, as its outlook is mostly romanticist, realist i.e. eternal truths. But the interpretation of outlook must to some extent acknowledge the changing times.

I think that need to change might be one of the things that kills a genre, and certainly when that need to change is early and imagined. They always end up changing the wrong thing, and it eventually even becomes a rational explanation for selling out. Look at the trash bands that sold out. They all explain it by saying they were in a corner and it was time to change. So then they change to pop music.

I think it's not a true need, and you usually see that "evolution" is not the correct word for what they end up doing. They look at metal history in the 80s and see Slayer transform from early speed metal into Reign in Blood and then assume it's the game to keep pushing it, when really they were just trying to get to a certain point and not trying to constantly play a game of who is heaviest, which is a trap a lot of important metal bands fell in after that album came out.

How about this for a good idea for metal: If you have nothing to say and no good music to put out, then don't put out any at all.

Consumerism is the problem. The need to change is a need to make money. The need to constantly make albums and tour is to make money. Dante's Inferno could never exist in an atmosphere like this.

I think that need to change might be one of the things that kills a genre

If you can identify a genre as a means to an end, then it doesn't matter if it dies, especially if the end that is achieved is vastly superior, which in this case I think it would be. Given the already existing dammage done to black metal I'd say it's got nothing to lose. The spirit of speed metal and death metal has always lived in black metal, so why couldn't a non black metal musician be influenced in the same way?

... and certainly when that need to change is early and imagined. They always end up changing the wrong thing, and it eventually even becomes a rational explanation for selling out. Look at the trash bands that sold out. They all explain it by saying they were in a corner and it was time to change. So then they change to pop music.

I think it's not a true need, and you usually see that "evolution" is not the correct word for what they end up doing. They look at metal history in the 80s and see Slayer transform from early speed metal into Reign in Blood and then assume it's the game to keep pushing it, when really they were just trying to get to a certain point and not trying to constantly play a game of who is heaviest, which is a trap a lot of important metal bands fell in after that album came out.

True, but isn't it possible that the change is occuring naturally and eventually for the better? Besides I'm thinking more Dol Guldur or Electric Doom Synthesis than Anthems to the Welkin at Dusk.